01-28-2017, 12:34 PM
Thanks Mike. We need to discuss something concrete, even though we are not likely to agree as a group. Allow me to muddy the waters even further by mentioning the two most critical issues, neither of which seems tied to the rhythm of politics or culture.
First, AGW. Let's agree that this is an issue of increasing importance that will trigger real change at some point, but is entirely outside the boundary of politics. Yes, we can make political decisions that will slow or speed the process, but the process is based in physics. It can't be bargained down or delayed by popular vote. On the political side, we do have two takes on dealing with the issue: (1) move with a little due speed, and (2) ignore the problem. Only the scientific community is duly worried, and they have no political clout to speak of. What we do know: at some point the situation will be beyond our ability to ignore. I'm assuming that the timing for this is outside the current 4T window, so I'm also assuming the issue is delayed until <insert you best guess for the time when the SHTF>.
Second, automation. We are already seeing the less educated up-in-arms about their economic futures (as they should be), but the solutions being offered are both inadequate andstraight out of cloud-cuckoo-land imprecise. We can see that the process is ongoing and likely to accelerate, so what do we do to accommodate millions of under employed citizens? Let's agree that closing the borders and blaming others won't get us there. Since this issue is already on the 4T menu, how does it push us toward a resolution? Will we resolve anything?
Both of those issues are unique to this 4T. Both are extremely difficult to address ... or even understand, for that matter. The normal dynamics running through the political and social structures are still there too: no direct memory of a existential war, and no recent experience with low inequality and political comity. So we're going to fight the old battles and fresh ones to boot. If Trump actually manages to sell a massive infrastructure build-out, he may be able to use that to solidify his position through the next 1T. After that, the deluge.
I don't claim to know how this all plugs into one of Mike's reference models ... if it does at all.
First, AGW. Let's agree that this is an issue of increasing importance that will trigger real change at some point, but is entirely outside the boundary of politics. Yes, we can make political decisions that will slow or speed the process, but the process is based in physics. It can't be bargained down or delayed by popular vote. On the political side, we do have two takes on dealing with the issue: (1) move with a little due speed, and (2) ignore the problem. Only the scientific community is duly worried, and they have no political clout to speak of. What we do know: at some point the situation will be beyond our ability to ignore. I'm assuming that the timing for this is outside the current 4T window, so I'm also assuming the issue is delayed until <insert you best guess for the time when the SHTF>.
Second, automation. We are already seeing the less educated up-in-arms about their economic futures (as they should be), but the solutions being offered are both inadequate and
Both of those issues are unique to this 4T. Both are extremely difficult to address ... or even understand, for that matter. The normal dynamics running through the political and social structures are still there too: no direct memory of a existential war, and no recent experience with low inequality and political comity. So we're going to fight the old battles and fresh ones to boot. If Trump actually manages to sell a massive infrastructure build-out, he may be able to use that to solidify his position through the next 1T. After that, the deluge.
I don't claim to know how this all plugs into one of Mike's reference models ... if it does at all.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.